Bill Clinton attacked all Muslim Americans during his speech to the DNC

Sitting through the horror show that was the Republican National Convention, you’d think that there was no other way, but up. The anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-black rhetoric that was overtly paraded out in speech after speech was expected, but shocking nonetheless. But while many have come to expect the onslaught of bigotry from the right, there have been some cringeworthy moments at this week’s Democratic National Convention as well.

What did Bill Clinton Just Say?

“If you’re a Muslim and you love America and freedom and you hate terror, stay here and help us win and make a future together, we want you.” – Bill Clinton

As the former President of the United States delivered this line, the DNC crowd roared with approval. For many, the statement may seem innocuous on its face. Strategically, the tenor of the convention has been all about juxtaposing the unhinged nature of Donald Trump against the “more trustworthy” and “stable” Hillary. In the wake of Trump’s consistently inflammatory rhetoric about Muslims, Bill Clinton’s comments were aimed at being a galvanizing force for the Left and those who are undecided. But for many in the Muslim community, those comments fell flat.

Let’s pause and break this statement down:

Hate Terror? – Why yes, in fact – Muslims do hate terror. That is because Muslims are the vast majority of terror victims worldwide. Ask the people of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Turkey and many others how they feel.

Why is it every damn time we bring up Muslims it's in the context of terrorism? We r more than national security sound bites. #DemsInPhilly

But that’s just part of the point. The only time you choose to mention Muslims in your speech is through the lens of terror. The Clinton campaign has consistently used this type of narrative throughout the debate process. This type of rhetoric paints the diverse, deeply-entrenched American Muslim community as one-dimensional and useful for only one thing, when it comes to life in America. Which brings me to my next point:

Stay here? – I don’t know how it was possible to hit so many wrong notes in a single sentence, but somehow Clinton was able to do it. Telling Muslims to “stay here” gives the impression that Islam is something “foreign” or “other” – when in reality, Islam has been in the fabric of this nation since its inception.

Bill Clinton has nerve saying American Muslims can stay in here if we do such & such. My Muslim ancestors got here before 1776. Take a hike.

Even though Muslims make up a small minority in America, with estimates as high as 7 million people – it is fallacious to paint the community as consisting solely of immigrants. Historians have estimated that over 20% – and even as high as 30% of African slaves that were brought to American colonies were of Muslim descent. And while those who were enslaved were beaten and stripped of their religion over time, it is undeniable that Islam was a part of their lives.

Today, 1/3 of Muslims in this country are African American, which goes against consistent this narrative being pushed from both right and left, that Muslims are “foreign.”

When it comes to the immigrant community in America, this holds true as well. Muslim immigrants have been here in America in waves, ever since the late 1800’s. The very first mosque in America was built in North Dakota during the 1920’s.

“We want you.” – One has to ask the question: Who is “we”? Muslims are just as part of the fabric of the “we” that makes up America as anyone else. As outlined earlier, our roots go back as deep – if not sometimes deeper than those in the Clinton family. While he is trying to make a point of just how intolerant Trump and Co. are, his words have a tinge of Orientalism to them.

This wasn’t the first time Bill Clinton has gotten into hot water over what were perceived to be condescending remarks toward Muslims. At a forum he was speaking at earlier this year, he told an ambitious young Muslim “this is a pretty steep career lens for a Muslim woman.” To which, she replied: “Well actually, I don’t think it’s too steep for a Muslim woman.”

In that very same soundbite, he somehow managed to offend people from the black and Latino communities as well.

The moral of the story is: The minority community does not want to be talked at. Whether black, immigrant, Muslim – or all of the above, we realize that there are societal issues that we are dealing with. We realize that we are facing record levels of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment. We realize that black men are being killed by law enforcement at an alarming rate, in comparison to everyone else. We realize that these issues need to be addressed and rectified now, and not be pushed aside.

But rather than using our communities as a prop and “talking at” us, it is important to get away from these tropes that we have become so accustomed to hearing. Also, it’s probably not a good idea to bring in a mayor who defended “Stop and Frisk” and unchecked blanket surveillance upon an entire community of Muslims. Yes, that’s right – things got even more awkward, as the DNC decided to bring in former NYC Mayor, Michael Bloomberg to address the crowd.

The Muslim community in New York City is still reeling from the effects of the NYPD’s blanket spying program that spanned beyond the city’s borders – throughout the entire Northeast. Businesses were spied upon, informants planted in mosques, students followed to conventions, and a community’s trust betrayed. Bloomberg was an ardent defender of this ongoing program that spanned a better part of a decade, even though it was revealed that “zero actionable intelligence” was gathered from spying on Muslims. It was no surprise then, that Muslim activists expressed strong objections to having the former mayor on a prime-time speaking docket. He’s not even a Democrat – but therein lies the strategy. The DNC is trying to court disgruntled Republicans to make the switch for this election, due to the extreme nature of Trump and his campaign. In the end, the request was for naught – and the mayor who alienated so many minority communities got his speaking gig.

You could say all of this ties in together. This election, for many out there boils down to “a lesser of two evils.” The DNC is presenting itself as a more tolerant, open option in comparison to what the RNC has to offer. They have, essentially done a good job of denouncing the overt bellicose and Islamophobic language that Trump has served up in previous months. If we look a little deeper, however – it seems as though there is still much work to do. Bill Clinton’s comments were just a glimpse of this looming beneath the surface. The Muslim community is a diverse, vibrant, and well-entrenched one. It is time to stop talking at us, to move beyond the stereotypical tropes out there, and listen to what we have to say.

About Imraan Siddiqi

Imraan Siddiqi is a writer, activist and Executive Director of CAIR-Arizona. He has been published in a wide variety of outlets on the subject of Islamophobia and American Muslims. He is also editor of the website HateHurts.net – a project to track Islamophobia and its fallout on multiple communities. You can follow him on Twitter @imraansiddiqi

Posted In:

31 Responses

I was struck dumb – but at the same time not at all surprised – when I heard this line.

The Clintons are totally and completely disconnected from reality; this is yet another demonstration of their immense sense of entitlement and concomitant ideological sloppiness. Law, morality, The Constitution, decency, and logic all fall apart in the face of Bill and Hillary’s quest for power: they get to decide who stays and who goes, who is American enough, who lives or dies. . . This is their attitude towards American citizens, vested with all their theoretical rights, just imagine how little regard they have for the brown and black people of foreign lands. Of course there’s no need to try your brain imagining, for they both have extensive records of callousness, aggression and murderous destruction abroad.

Contemplating Hillary Clinton’s return to the White House is a frightening thing. Jill Stein is our only hope – the worlds only hope really.

Wow… This is just one article I’ve read of many echoing the sentiment that bill Clinton and the democrats are antimuslim. I can’t believe this. The Bill Clinton thing just seems like a lot of misplaced anger over semantics.

Why aren’t Muslim Americans doing what they should be; I.e. Spending all their time making sure Trump doesn’t become americas first fascist president.

The democrats are damn sure not perfect, Bill could have worded things differently (but there is no question to me he is pro-Muslim and doesn’t have a prejudiced bone in his body), and Hillary has flaws-no question… But do you really think Stein is the answer?

Voting for stein may be principled and all that, but if enough people do it it will get Trump, an ignorant hate monger, elected president. And then who knows what happens? Articles like this will be suppressed, Muslims will be viewed with suspicion, not in the way they admittedly already are, but explicitly and as part of government policy! We could see travel bans, outright bans on Muslims immigrants, and deportations right along with Mexican and South American immigrants he hates so much.

Come on… Don’t let anger over semantics and apathy towards the Clinton’s and their brand of slow, practical change and progress get trump elected. Because it could happen. And things could get so much worse, not just for Muslim Americans but for everyone.

anger over semantics and apathy towards the Clinton’s and their brand of slow, practical change and progress…

Slow, practical progress: bombing, invasion, instantaneous annihilation of populations, “civil” wars by open intervention, massacres by the thousands in a few days. Progressing from détente to the brink of WWIII by insistent provocation in a few months.
Slow, the massacre of Gaza? Mind you, anything done in Palestine by the Zionists is done by the US.
Practical of course, but is that really too slow for you?

get trump elected. Because it could happen. And things could get so much worse

An understanding with Russia, a push to negotiate in Palestine, a slowing down of the general warmongering are what he favors so far. Even if he’s not reliable, is that worse than the Obamanian general wars and massacres and their even worse dynastic-Clintonian intensification?
Of course Trump has given in to the Zionist lobby, but how can he ever be worse than the dynastic ueber-Zionist?

As the reaction to Trump brings the Democrats new support from the right, the Democrats are free to discard to the left. Especially if some leftward jabs help to consolidate new support from the right.

i didn’t here bill give that speech but while i count see the tone he used if i go by this article it sure sounds like it was a back-handed compliment, or an outright insult to american muslims.
“stay here”? are muslims in the us wanting to leave in large numbers? i doubt it.

anyway-it sounds like this part of the speech was not directed at muslims , american muslims at all. they were just the brunt of the point clinton was trying to push about how the dnc loves ‘everybody’

a nice counterpoint to this, at least imo, was the pakistani american-muslim father who whipped out his worn out , trusty old copy of the constitution to rightly claim his undeniable sacrifice and complete right as a citizen to smack trumpf over the head with a constitution he most likely paid some lucky to read for him-if he even did that. i’m not a muslim but if i were-i imagine that seeing the father and mother in such a proud and dignified light was startling -if only because the mood in the muslim community in the us must be pretty glum. i have to think that was a high point.

Old slick willie got off a 2-fer with his condescending, insulting remarks to Muslim Americans (1/3 being African American). They took off their masks at the DNC and no one should be surprised what’s been underneath all along. My favorite response to this offense is by Dawud Walid “Bill Clinton has nerve saying American Muslims can stay in here if we do such & such. My Muslim ancestors got here before 1776. Take a hike.” Priceless.

I think in saying that they can “stay here” is meant more as a contrast to trump, who is literally saying they can’t stay here and shouldn’t even be allowed in the country.

All of this nitpicking over the comments of good progressives like Clinton is just steering the narrative away from the real boogeyman. It’s fine to discuss and debate anything anyone says, this is America after all, but it needs to be put into the proper perspective. Demonizing the democrats as antimuslim is just going to convince people to stay home or vote for Stein, and if enough of that sort or nonsense takes root it’s gonna lead to the unthinkable: a reality tv star presidency.

Bill Clinton’s remarks were horrendously anti-Muslim. As the OP noted, they placed American Muslims in the category of “other” whose presence in their own country is conditional. (Note that 81% of Muslims in this country are US citizens).

I’m not interested in demonizing anyone. I’m simply interested in pointing out the truth. The truth is that Bill Clinton has treated Muslims despicably (note the sanctions on Iraq and his unwavering support for Israel no matter what). His wife is a firm friend of Netanyahu. In my case I intend to hold my nose hard and vote for her, but let’s us keep our eyes open here.

Hello Imraan Siddiqi. First, a brief, honest, and serious disclaimer/qualifier: I don’t consider myself a Hillary supporter, and I haven’t yet decided how I will vote. In fact, I find Hillary’s foreign policy, particularly her overblown, anti-Palestinian/Israel-First rhetoric and policy shameful at best. And, of course, wildly immoral/unethical/illegal at worst. However, I’m also a stickler for language…

Let’s pause and break this statement down: Hate Terror? – Why yes, in fact – Muslims do hate terror. That is because Muslims are the vast majority of terror victims worldwide… The only time you choose to mention Muslims in your speech is through the lens of terror.

It’s almost like you’re saying Bill means to imply that Muslims do not hate terror. But that’s plainly absurd so I’ll let that go. But implying that Bill C. said this because he “only mentions Muslims through the lens of terror” is major spin. Really? That’s what you think he meant? That’s forced. It’s plainly a response to Trump’s immigration nonsense and his racist Islamophobic rhetoric.

Stay here?… Telling Muslims to “stay here” gives the impression that Islam is something “foreign” or “other” – when in reality, Islam has been in the fabric of this nation since its inception.

You’re reading into this in a very forced, odd way. So you feel that when B. Clinton says “Stay here,” what he means is that Islam hasn’t been in the U.S. for a long time, or is “other/foreign?” No. I don’t think that’s what he means at all. Again, it’s obviously a response to Trump’s (and many racist, Islamophobic Americans) call for banning muslims and to his immigration policy. Folks who don’t like being unfairly demonized and who are in constant fear of incrimination and deportation may very well consider leaving the U.S. Clinton is obviously trying to tell Muslim Americans that he, and Hillary, don’t want them to leave due to the racist, Islamophobic rhetoric/attitudes Trump and other Americans use. And that Trump’s discriminatory anti-Muslim immigration policy will not be a part of Hillary’s agenda. Seeing Bill’s statement, instead, as meaning “Islam has not been part of America” or that he meant Islam is “foreign,” is a major spin. I think you’re seeing something that isn’t there.

“We want you.” – One has to ask the question: Who is “we”?

It’s obvious that Bill means “Americans,” or, at any rate, the Democratic Party and the majority of Americans who who happen to be reasonable/non-racists. And this, of course, includes Muslim Americans. Again, reading “We want you,” especially in the context of this speech/campaign, as anything other than Bill taking a swipe at Trump’s B.S. racist rhetoric/policy, is deep spin.

The moral of the story is: The minority community does not want to be talked at. Whether black, immigrant, Muslim – or all of the above, we realize that there are societal issues that we are dealing with. We realize that we are facing record levels of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment. We realize that black men are being killed by law enforcement at an alarming rate, in comparison to everyone else. We realize that these issues need to be addressed and rectified now, and not be pushed aside.

So you realize that these issues need to be addressed… But just not by folks running for the presidency? Because if they speak out against Islamophobic rhetoric and policy they’re merely “talking at you?” Are you suggesting that bullshit Islamophobia should not be countered or mentioned by the Clintons? That for them to say nothing against it is a good, moral tactic? I would say that’s, quite literally, nonsense.

But rather than using our communities as a prop and “talking at” us, it is important to get away from these tropes that we have become so accustomed to hearing.

I would suggest that the idea that if someone from outside of your community (and remember that “community” can be interpreted broadly or narrowly) expresses their opinion on an issue affecting that community, that they are merely “talking at” you instead of simply expressing themselves and trying to contribute to some sort of conversation, is the trope we should be getting away from.

You make some decent points, seem like a very level headed person… That said, please don’t vote trump! Clinton needs all the support she can get from rational people like you in November.

Someone above compare trumps “reality star” credentials to Reagan’s movie star past, but for the love of god please do not compare Ronald Reagan and Donald trump. Ronald Reagan was not the great man so many make him out to be, but donald trump makes Ronald Reagan look like a brilliant, rational, and caring world leader-and that’s saying something.

Donald trump is the single worst, and downright scariest candidate that has ever ran for election backed by a major party in modern u.s. History. The man has no intellectual curiosity for gods sake! He is just a flip flopping hate monger who uses race and anger to divide the country; that is not a strategy to win an election-that’s a strategy to plant the seeds of a civil war. This man is basically committing treason by asking Russia to spy on Hillary Clinton… Is a man with judgement like that fit for office?

I hear you BlakeB87. No worries on me voting for Trump. I’m not dumb enough fall for his “populist” crap. He’s marketing. He’s who, and what, Bill Hicks was talking about in what I consider to be his best bit here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhNfHuzDQkk

However, even though Reagan was much more composed and well-spoken than Trump, they are both coming from “entertainment” backgrounds. So the fact that a reality tv star is getting political support from our electorate shouldn’t really be that big of a shock. And in terms of social policy and business/corporate regulation policy, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump and Reagan aren’t so far from one another.

But I’m still not sure I can vote for Hillary. She’s just so awful on Palestine – which, if I was to call myself a “single issue voter” (which I might call myself…) would be my single issue. Even knowing that she is actually better than Trump – the distance between these two major party nominees, in terms of policy, experience, and attitude is bigger than any I can recall since I’ve been old enough to vote – voting for Hillary would still feel like a grotesque betrayal of the Palestinian people. I just don’t know if I can do it…

Even knowing that she is actually better than Trump – the distance between these two major party nominees, in terms of policy, experience, and attitude is bigger than any I can recall since I’ve been old enough to vote

There is no need to be a single-issue voter to realize the horror of that vote. Not that there is anything wrong with single-issue vote or activism. In fact, I hope that a majority of Palestine solidarity people are single-issue people, otherwise we’re sunk.

But meanwhile, let’s hear these famous “differences”. One by one, and exactly. “Policy”? Like endless war all over the freakin world? “Experience”? Like, show me one (1) single thing the Harpy didn’t screw up? “Attitude”? Yeah, she’s showing you a middle finger the size of a high-rise…

Anyway, that Blake sure isn’t here to help Palestinian resistance but as a pure Imperialist Establishment propagandist.

Look at what he picked up in Eugene McCarthy’s drawer: “This man is basically committing treason by asking Russia to spy on Hillary Clinton…”

But meanwhile, let’s hear these famous “differences”. One by one, and exactly.

Sure. I don’t know about “exactly,” but telling you my thoughts on differences between Trump and Hillary is pretty easy. And you asked for it “one by one,” so I’ll make a list:

1) Immigration policy. Trump talks about banning Muslims, building a wall, calls Mexican migrants criminals and rapists, etc. Hillary doesn’t. To borrow a phrase from Trump, in my ind this difference is HUGE.

2) Minimum wage. I’ve heard Hillary speak on raising this, and of course Bernie was also good on this issue. Hillary is, admittedly, not very convincing on this, but if enough pressure is kept on her on this issue, she may raise the minimum wage to a ore livable rate. I don’t see Trump giving a shit about this. In fact, didn’t he say something about wanting to erase the minimum wage concept entirely?

3) College affordability. Again, same as the minimum wage issue. Bernie was more convincing, but if pressure is kept up, Hillary could very well produce some results here. Whereas Trump clearly sees colleges and universities as businesses designed to make maximum profit.

4) Health care. Everyone knows that this has been a major concern throughout Hillary’s entire life. I believe she honestly wants affordable health care for all. I don’t believe Trump gives a shit about anyone’s health but his own, and I haven’t heard him talk about any ideas on how to help folks get affordable coverage. He may have spoken about it and I just missed it, I don’t know…

5) Equal pay for woman. Clinton speaks on this. I haven’t heard trump speak about it. And if you believe Trump cares about this, and will act on it, as much as Hillary does, you need your head examined. If you don’t care so much about the issue, well that’s another story…

7) Abortion. Hillary is unequivocally supportive of a woman’s right to choose. My understanding is that Trump is hard to pin down on this, or has had different stances through the years. And his running mate, as I understand, is staunchly pro-life. This is maybe thee most intractable issue in politics. I happen to be pro-choice. But I understand the pro-life view. This issue will never be “resolved.”

9) In Hillary’s speech at the DNC the other night, she mentioned something very interesting to me. She mentioned she would give a tax break/incentive to businesses who “profit share” w/ their workers. I believe her plan also involves breaks for the businesses if they involve workers in the decision making processes of the business. I don’t know if she’s laid out specifics on this, and it certainly could be not as good as it sounds. But the mere mention of wanting businesses to “share profits” with their workers and giving them tax breaks if they do so, in the biggest, most viewed speech of her entire life, is encouraging to me. And again, since she mentioned it in this historic speech, she can be held accountable if she caves on it, or is too weak on the specifics of the plan. Would Trump speak on wanting businesses to share their profits w/ their workers? Not likely…

10) Trump is a clown.

“Policy”? Like endless war all over the freakin world?

I’m w/ you on that. In my opinion, her undeniable, decades long proven street cred as an “American Exceptionalist” war hawk is right up there w/ the best of all the men (“but if we have a woman as president there’ll be no more war” my ass…). With her unconditional diplomatic, military, and financial support of war crimes in Israel being the centerpiece. And yeah, like I said earlier, this giant problem w/ her may enough for me to blow off everything I’ve listed above, and to simply withhold my vote from her. Honestly, it’s weighing pretty heavy on my conscience.

Anyway, that Blake sure isn’t here to help Palestinian resistance but as a pure Imperialist Establishment propagandist….Look at what he picked up in Eugene McCarthy’s drawer: “This man is basically committing treason by asking Russia to spy on Hillary Clinton…”

like I said earlier, this giant problem w/ her may enough for me to blow off everything I’ve listed above, and to simply withhold my vote from her.

So we are entirely in agreement: on the only thing that counts, there is no difference.
The only thing that counts, because we are still waging war of aggression and every citizen remains an accessory as long as he complies with US law and pays taxes, direct or indirect.
In fact, a slightly negative difference, as Trump, albeit unreliable, must play his bozo role of isolationist, and he is making commendable noises re war of aggression, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and most importantly Russia and Crimea.

Basically, speaking as a fellow poster on Mondoweiss where our common objective is strictly support to Palestinian resistance and people –both directly facing the American might– that’s our only mutual interest.
——
[that said, 1 has already and is being implemented intensively by sweet-talking Obama, of whom the Harpy is a guaranteed continuation; 2 is a demagogic illusion to be eaten by inflation the same day, as long as not pegged to clear purchasing-power basic indexes; 3 is nowhere close to BS’ mildly interesting proposal ie empty talk; 4 she has worked furiously *against*, every step of the way, 5-7 ok but irrelevantly cultural; 8 ridiculous coming from an MIC representative; 9 is a trap, but all that is rather a question of personal preferences; none of those amount to a hill of beans because see above]

Echo- obviously means Joe McCarthy’s drawer rather than Eugene McCarthy’s drawer. I know how easy it is to confuse a fat anti communist republican drunk from Wisconsin with a thin gray, anti Vietnam war democratic poet from Minnesota, but they are in fact very distinct individuals.

I can hardly remember Eugene McCarthy at all, and, unless one has been paying close attention, it is difficult to tell one American politician from another. They blend together into a single, uninspiring, blur of craziness.

As for discriminating between Wisconsin and Minnesota – not a chance. All those northern states look alike.

I’m opposed to any PLO rights. I’m also opposed to any boycott groups of Israel. I was a Democrat years ago. I even voted for Bill Clinton. Actually, both Clinton and Trump are Pro Arab rights. But Hillary Clinton is more for the rights of Arabs.

Clinton is only using triangulation political methods to get votes. As soon as elected, Hillary, will use selective left wing groups to bully Democrats into following their PLO agenda. See the example of Debbie Wassermann Schultz, my guess is she was scapegoated. It seems the lobbying groups and Dem groups that scapegoated her are pro PLO.

I’m not a politician; I get no money from the oil industry, or the military industrial complex. I could never support PLO rights, because as I became a citizen of Israel I had the opportunity to get off the tour bus; with their brainwashing (think Birthright trips)… I’m not a Orthodox Jew, though my great grandfather was the president of a Orthodox synagogue in the US.

I can assure all the pro PLO US supporters that are being encouraged to help the PLO and similar groups out of humanitarian reasons … you are being tricked. I checked just about every country that will not allow a Israeli passport holder to enter is a big financial supporter of the PLO etc. Those same groups are the same ones that scapegoated Debbie Wassermann Schultz, and countless other Jewish reporters that are anti-Trump.

As a pacifist anarchist I researched the PLO methods. The PLO organization methods are those of Nazi organizations by and large. I would never go to Judea or Samaria because I’m hated by both the right wing Zionist Orthodox Jews (settlers) and by the Arabs… because they think I’m a Jew because any Arab thinks I’m Jewish because my father is Jewish..even though the Jewish community generally considers me non-Jewish, because my mother is not Jewish. I know because when I got off the tour bus in Israel, and, I asked a Israeli Arab how they think about my Jewishness; he said, three times that I’m a Jew even though my mother is not Jewish.

I suggest that all left wing group members get off the tour bus. Your leaders are self serving.

As observed, being descended from King David establishes him as a cousin of Jesus.
That’s his way of [subtly?] asserting racial superiority over Turkic, Khazar, Berber, Armenian, Greek and several other origins within the invented tribe: he’s saying he must be an original Palestinian –a Connor McLeod* come back to claim his own personal inheritance (as all the pretend-Hebraic Zionist converts claimed to be but with no personal papers…)

As far as I can tell from his comments to date and to summarise he sees himself as a “pacific anarchist liberal Zionist Catholic half Jew with potentially Royal Davidian blue blood”. Oh and his mother is not Jewish which is I think the itch which he is frantically scratching.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.